[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180710112459.ielgaydrgd4kxizo@salvia>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:24:59 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Máté Eckl <ecklm94@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: NFT_SOCKET don't use NF_SOCKET_IPV6 without
NF_TABLES_IPV6
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:15:36PM +0200, Máté Eckl wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:56:05PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
[...]
> This patch only solves the nf_socket and nft_socket modules problem so I can
> only submit a v2 for 'netfilter: Kconfig: Change IPv6 select dependencies' but
> you already applied it so it would meen a force push. Should I do this?
>
> I think Arnd's patch solves these problems in case we don't want to force-push
> or rebase.
You are refering to these two patches, right?
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/941374/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/941696/
> > I think it's better if we toss your original patch in the tree and
> > rebase, ie. take the new one that fixes all issues that Arnd is
> > reporting. It would be good if we can sort out this before I send the
> > next pull request for net-next stuff.
> >
> > I was afraid of fallout like this when I saw your original patch,
> > kbuild is always tricky.
>
> This patch is not related to the nft_tproxy module (it seems that you refer to
> that) as Arnd didn't have that in the tree when doing this. I'll send a v4 fot
> the tproxy module, but that cannot be related to this one as it is not in tree
> yet.
No, I'm refering to 35bf1ccecaaa ("netfilter: Kconfig: Change IPv6
select dependencies"), that is causing the issues.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists